The difference between Realism and Neorealism - Essay Example

?What is the difference between Realism and Neorealism? Is the latter an advance on the former? Realism and neorealism are philosophies which have been much discussed in the recent times. Their differences are important to know because many aspects of international conflict and politics are mentioned within their domains. The neorealism ideology is an advanced link to the classic realism and this has been duly highlighted within the length of this paper. This will give an idea on how realism and neorealism are understood within a global context and how their differences have facilitated the political settings in this day and age. It will tackle the debate regarding how realism has shaped up the neorealism nuances and how neorealism differs from classic realism from the outset of such analyses. Introduction Realists are frequently faced with the consequence of being intellectually smart with Thucydides’ classic saga of the Peloponnesian War which occurred in the fifth century BC. It would date back to about 2500 years when the study of world politics started to take place as an institutionalized field of academics as well as for the initial classical realists to come about within this newly inaugurated discipline. It is important to focus on the classical form of realism as compared to neorealism which is a necessary element of the mainstream literature available today. Even though realism is different from neorealism, it would be significant to understand which of the two is an advanced form of the other one? (Waltz, 1979). Since realism is involved with the world as it essentially is as compared to how it should be, neorealism is more commonly associated with international politics as a whole. The two forms in effect suggest the distinction towards human nature (classic realism) and emphasis on international politics (neorealism). This paper highlights the two forms have their marked differences and weighs the pros and cons that come along with the same (Keohane, 1986). When this has been done, the study will find out which one is an advanced form of the other, and how the two can co-exist alongside one another to achieve a solid basis for the people who believe in such ideologies and have a comprehension regarding these from time to time. In the following paragraphs, both realism and neorealism will be explained in detail and then their differences will be highlighted upon (Wendt, 1999). Focus on Realism In order to understand what realism is, it is necessary to know what it stands for. Realism is related to some form of reality in every form of context that one studies it. When one sees realism from the domains of philosophy, it is a documentation of philosophical realism which suggests for the perspective of reality existing in freedom of some observers. Similarly, realism in arts and scientific realism is a couple of other distinctive realism’s basis which takes place in separate disciplines. It is indeed a philosophy of mind which is deeply rooted within the common sense philosophy related with perception and at times is remarked as naive realism (Mutch, 2009). This naive realism has been a manifestation of direct realism which when differentiated from representative realism gives out a perspective that human beings cannot perceive and analyze the external world in a direct fashion. Realism at times is pessimistic and concentrates upon the repeating patterns of politics backed up by power as demonstrated by recurring conflicts and rifts, the tussles and rivalries. Since this seems like a world full of negativity and immense gloom, realism is a concept that is linked in close resemblance with the balance of power as well as the security question which essentially gain essence as the chief analytical tools within the aegis of realism (Crawford, 2002). Realists give enough importance on the premise of the state within the discussions that emanate from the domains of international politics. Also they believe that the national interest gains more impressions. This is their regional ego which comes about on the surface to give due importance to the nationalism debates. It is also a fact that these realists are of the view that the distribution of power; or the amount of skills and capabilities has a huge amount of say within the discernment of outcomes, most of which are banked upon in a worldly setting (Gilbert, 1999). Therefore realism is an angle that whole-heartedly devotes its own self and the basis towards what the state thinks and how it goes about documenting its own position in a consistent manner – as has been evidenced through research over a period of many decades now. Emphasis on Neorealism A theory of international relations, neorealism or structural realism was mentioned by Waltz in his book ‘Theory of International Politics’ in the year 1979. Neorealism has been debated upon by Waltz in the favor of a systematic approach where the world structure plays out as a restraining factor towards the behavior of the state. This is so done to make sure that the states which have an expected range survive in the long run. Some people believe that as far as neorealism is concerned, this model is much similar to one could see for a microeconomic model where organizations set prices as well as quantity based on the market index. Factually put, neorealism does away with the classical realism as the latter makes use of the core concept of human nature to put forward the explanation of politics taking place in a global context. The neorealist thinkers have coined up a theory which provides for structural constraints over the strategies and motivations of the agents. Anarchy is an ordering principle upon which neorealism banks deeply (Hurrell, 2002). This anarchy defines the international structure as well as the distribution of capabilities which could easily be measured by the great powers which are present within the international system. This anarchic order is more or less decentralized and has no formal central authority within its aegis. It is comprised of a number of formally equal states, all of which are fundamentally sovereign. These states go about doing their norms with the assistance of self-help as states find out their peculiar interests and thus do not subordinate their interests towards others (Re, 1990). Neorealism has discerned that its neorealist scholars have a common disagreement in the perspective that whether states only aim to survive or to maximize their relative share of power. These neorealists conclude that war is a consequence of the anarchic structure which is present within the international system and it is likely to be much the same in the future as well. They argue that the ordering principle of the international system does not show any marked difference from the time of Thucydides towards the advent of the nuclear warfare. Differences between Realism and Neorealism In order to know more about realism and neorealism, it is of paramount importance to find out their respective differences. There are four significant differences that exist between realism and neorealism. The first of these distinctions is in the form of the finding of roots within global conflicts. Within the classic realism settings, the realists suggest that the roots of international conflicts as well as war have a major say within the imperfect human nature. This is in essence a dependence on the premise of human nature within realism as has been stated earlier. On the other hand, within neorealism, the neorealists are of the view that the deep causes are explained better in terms of the understanding of the anarchic international system that prevails (Mearsheimer, 2003). The second difference between realism and neorealism banks on the comprehension that the state is fundamentally superior to the system within realism while in neorealism it allows for far more space for the agency. The third difference between realism and neorealism is in their understanding of the status quo powers as well as the revisionist powers whereas neorealists remark the same states as unitary actors. The fourth and last difference between realism and neorealism is related with the scientific approach towards the study of the global politics. Even though neorealists endeavor to build about a more rigorous and scientific basis for the study of the international politics, one which is much influenced by the 1960s’ behaviorist revolution, realism bases its analysis towards subjective valuations of the debate of international relations. What is important to know is the fact that these four differences are the core ingredients of knowing how and where classic realism distinguishes itself from neorealism. Even though the similarities are few, the differences raise the point of much debate and at times severe criticism for the sake of the realists and neorealists. They have their own understandings upon which it is difficult to get the other side come in complete agreement. What matters most under such circumstances is a belief to set things right for the classic realism and neorealism to comprehend which one is better for the long term standing of the international politics perspectives (Inoguchi, 2000). Is Neorealism an Advance on Realism? Neorealism is indeed an advance on the classic realism ideology. Since neorealism focuses more on the anarchic international system that exists in this day and age, it is an obvious extension from how realism seeks more refuge in human nature more than anything else. Neorealism is therefore advancement on the realism count for a number of reasons, most significantly the ones which look forward to nation to nation inter-linkages (Lieb, 2004). Waltz has argued that the system which discerns the behaviors of the actors is more significant than their respective motivational levels within neorealism. Anarchy needs to be created in order to get the best out of a neorealist condition to come about which is an apparent form of systemic approach under such quarters. Even though realism is inherently different from how neorealism comes about, the similarities are hard to find and this is also one of the reasons why neorealism is remarked as a successor of realism in this day and age (Sampson, 2002). It would be pivotal to mention that neorealism is given the importance as it discusses how anarchy forces its way through the terrains of an international system which was never even discussed within the norms of the classic realism debate. Much understanding therefore needs to be sorted out in order to comprehend how the advancement has taken place on a global level and what the repercussions are in the long term scheme of things (Buzan, 1993). Essentially speaking, this indeed is the factor that shall rein supreme under such discussions of the difference between realism and neorealism – both of which remain fundamental philosophies or ideologies if seen in an individual context. Combining the two would not bring about many solid results, more so because neorealism is a present day philosophy as compared to how classic realism banked deeply on the times gone by with the help of the emphasis on human nature merely (Pacifici, 1972). Thus it would be correct to deduce that neorealism is indeed an advanced form of classic realism as the results have spoken for their own selves with the changing times. The results are there to see and understand for just about everyone who is related with these concepts. Conclusion In the end, it is important to touch upon aspects which have been detailed within the length of this discussion. The debate distinguishes how well classic realism is different from neorealism and how the two can work in independence of one another. Realism and neorealism are inherently distinctive in their respective natures yet the onus falls on the international politics which is indeed something dire to suggest about how global contexts are studied (Nochlin, 1972). All said and done, both classic realism and neorealism fundamentally highlight how international politics and conflict within the human nature and states regimes have helped the cause of the society more than anything else. This is the reason why classic realism is at times appreciated more than neorealism while on other occasions; neorealism is given much weight than classic realism. Bibliography Buzan, B., 1993. The Logic of Anarchy: Neorealism to Structural Realism. Columbia University Press Crawford, R., 2000. Idealism and Realism in International Relations: Beyond the Discipline. Routledge Gilbert, A., 1999. Must Global Politics Constrain Democracy? Great-Power Realism, Democratic Peace, and Democratic Internationalism. Princeton University Press Hurrell, A., 2002. The Anarchical Society. Columbia University Press Inoguchi, T., 2000. American Democracy Promotion: Impulses, Strategies, and Impacts. Oxford University Press Keohane, R., 1986. Neorealism and Its Critics. Columbia University Press Lieb, D., 2004. The Limits of Neorealism: Marginal States and International Relations Theory. Harvard International Review, vol. 26 Mearsheimer, J., 2003. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W. W. Norton & Company Mutch, A., 2009. Dominant logic, culture and ideology. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 27 Nochlin, L., 1972. Realism (Style and Civilization). Penguin Pacifici, S., 1972. A Guide to Contemporary Italian Literature, from Futurism to Neorealism. Southern Illinois University Press Re, L., 1990. Calvino and the Age of Neorealism: Fables of Estrangement. Stanford University Sampson, A., 2002. Tropical Anarchy: Waltz, Wendt, and the Way We Imagine International Politics. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, vol. 27 Waltz, K., 1979. Theory of International Politics. MA: Addison–Wesley Pub. Co. Wendt, A., 1999. Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge Studies in International Relations). Cambridge University Press Read More